9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - the notification clearly states that the imported goods are required to discharge fifteen percent if importer undertakes to re-export the goods within six months from the date of import and in a case not able to do so, he has to pay further fifteen percent of the duty after six months but before the expiry of one year after the import of the goods - In any case the goods have been re-exported after six months but before one year, the clauses of the notification are very clear and the appellant is required to discharge additional fifteen percent of the duty along with interest - To that extent, the adjudicating authority was correct in confirming the demands raised for additional fifteen percent of the duty and the interest thereof. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipelines (herein after referred to as imported goods). The bills of entry were filed claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No.27/2002-Cus. Appellant discharged the concessional rate of duty of 15% with an undertaking that the imported goods will be re-exported within six months as per the conditions of the Notification 27/2002-Cus. The main appellant also executed a bond and bank guarantee for the Customs duty for 85% (foregone by department) as ordered by the lower authorities. The main appellant could not re-export the consignments within six months and the imported goods were exported after six months but before the expiry of one year. The lower authorities issued a show-cause notice for the recovery of duty of 85% along w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Expotec International Ltd. 46. I also impose a penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) on M/s Link Shipping and Management Systems Pvt. Ltd. for abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Learned Counsel would submit that the machinery has been re-exported is not in dispute; since there is an re-export there cannot be any demand under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962; the bond has already been discharged and the bank guarantee executed by appellant has also been cancelled by the department and cannot be enforced; the conditions of Notification are fulfilled as the appellant has discharged 15% of the customs duty on undertaking that they will re-export the goods, but failed to do so. Having ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 (51 of 1975). the goods have been taken (1) on lease by the importer for use after importation; (2) the importer makes a declaration at the time of import that the goods are being imported tempo-rarily for execution of a contract; (3) the said goods are re-exported within six months of the date of importation or within such extended period not exceeding one year from the date of importation, as the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, may allow; (4) where the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, grants extension of the aforesaid period for re-export, the importer shall pay the difference between the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of customs, which would be leviable under the said Customs Act, 1962 or under any other law for the time being in force, read with any notification for the time being in force in respect of the duty so chargeable. 5.1 It is undisputed that appellant had availed the benefit of less duty of 15% as per the notification No.27/2002-Cus and given an undertaking that the machinery will be re-exported within six months. It is also undisputed that the machinery was exported beyond the period of six months but within one year. The claim of the appellant s Counsel that they had sought extension of time for 10 days for re-export of the machinery which was rejected by the department, does not change the position of confirmation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eproduced sub-Section, the violation which is alleged and upheld by the adjudicating authority is incorrect as the imported goods were cleared claiming exemption of notification 27/2002-Cus, were re-exported within one year as per the condition of the notification. Hence confiscation ordered by the adjudicating authority for the violation of the notification No.27/2002-Cus seems to be incorrect and not in accordance with the law. Since the imported goods are re-exported within one year of imported goods being cleared there is no violation of the condition of notification 27/2002-Cus. Hence the confiscation ordered by the adjudicating authority is not correct and illegal and needs to be set aside. We set aside the confiscation ordered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
